Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie (Post 247175)

The very nature of your questions lead me to believe that we have completely different views on the role of government. I believe the government derives its powers from the people. Thus, my answers to you questions will show you how useless your questions are in the context of a government that derives its powers from the people:

1. Yes, if the people give/delegate that right. No, if the people don't.
2. Yes, if the people give/delegate that right. No, if the people don't.
3. Yes, if the people give/delegate that right. No, if the people don't.

Thus, it's a perfectly logical and legitimate argument to say the government doesn't have the right to take substance from one and give to another if one believes the government has no rights except for what the people have granted.

I don't claim to know what set of assumptions and values you're operating under but my reading of your posts and the nature of your questions indicate that you somehow believe the government is an entity unto itself above the people - with rights and powers derived unto itself from itself that it can exercise at will.

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death (Post 247180)

Why can't we have our social safety net through our charities? why does it have to be through the government?

You and Mike's thought is if we don't have a government intervention no other way can we help those less fortunate than us. I don't believe this.

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly (Post 247184)

Sounds like a flat tax would fix this inequality in contribution problem.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 247198)

Satan's plan isn't that everybody be saved. I can't believe you would even equate universal salvation with Satan's plan. Satan's plan is about the process for how people are saved. His plan was to require people to do what was right rather than granting them the choice. Christ's plan is in perfect harmony with the concept of universal salvation. He simply didn't require everyone to do what is right. Salvation through his plan comes through a combination of works and mercy. The plan you have articulated eliminates the need for mercy.

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death (Post 247189)

the point is he doesn't think that government intervention is the best way. Why is it you, ddd and MW can't understand that?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 247201)

Setting aside the many reasons a flat tax is a bad idea, this doesn't remain at all consistent with the approach you took earlier (which is that the government can't use your money to help others). A flat tax still takes your money and gives it to others. Now I am confused as to what you are wanting.

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly (Post 247204)

Didn't mean to communicate that the government can't use my money to help others. I think the gov't should use my money to promote the public good and protect our rights, not redistribute wealth.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 247203)

That isn't what he has argued here. Re-read the posts. This debate didn't begin as to whether or not government intervention is the "best way," it began as to whether it is a legitimate way. Venkman explicitly said it isn't, and Colly appears to have agreed. You and BFM are arguing a separate topic.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 247205)

You still aren't being clear. Do you believe that the government CAN use your money as a "redistribution" of wealth? Set aside whether it SHOULD so we can be clear in our discussion.

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly (Post 247207)

? CAN I shoot you with a gun and kill you? Sure. Yes, the government CAN redistribute wealth. I want to focus on the SHOULD.